CA - Shawn Harris convicted of raping his wife

In 2008, Shawn Harris was convicted of raping his then wife, an attack that was heard on audiotape.

The victim filed for divorce, which was granted in 2010. Shawn had the audacity to request spousal support.

Ridiculous right? Not so fast.

http://news.yahoo.com/victim-ordered-pay-attacker-spousal-support-201444230.html

"The judge awarded him $1,000 a month, and also asked C Harris to pay $47,000 of her ex-husband's legal fees from the divorce proceedings."

and


"Under normal circumstances, Harris would have been required to pay $3,000 a month in spousal support after the divorce, but because of the domestic violence she endured, the judge said he would lower that amount to $1,000.

"I call that the rape discount," Harris said."

and

"She appealed the judge's ruling, pointing out that her ex-husband will have no expenses while he's in jail.

The judge agreed, but when Shawn Harris, 40, is released from Donovan State Prison in 2014, he's entitled to ask for spousal support again. And California law entitles him to have it."

My first gut reaction was what?!

And then I thought about it. I'm sure the law is written such that persons who are divorced are entitled to spousal support, even if they have committed crimes. I'm sure the intent of this law was to protect the woman who steals a loaf of bread from the grocery because her kids are hungry, and not allow her spouse to wiggle out of supporting her because of it. I can think of a few situations where, even if a person committed a crime, they should still be allowed to have support.

This is not one of them. The law clearly needs to be modified so that if someone commits a crime against that spouse, it removes the obligation to pay spousal support. Because this is ridiculous.

AnaTeresa said:

My first gut reaction was what?!

And then I thought about it. I'm sure the law is written such that persons who are divorced are entitled to spousal support, even if they have committed crimes. I'm sure the intent of this law was to protect the woman who steals a loaf of bread from the grocery because her kids are hungry, and not allow her spouse to wiggle out of supporting her because of it. I can think of a few situations where, even if a person committed a crime, they should still be allowed to have support.

This is not one of them. The law clearly needs to be modified so that if someone commits a crime against that spouse, it removes the obligation to pay spousal support. Because this is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

He could have eliminated it. His choices in cases where there is documented DV is that he can reduce it or eliminate it.

She got 2000.00 off since she was raped apparently.:banghead:

And what is with the jury being hung on the other two charges? He was convicted of the rape for the forced oral copulation, but NOT of the forcible rape and sodomy that occurred AFTER the oral copulation? :waitasec:

The title of the thread drew me in here. I was thinking "hooray! a court that recognized that even a wife has a right to say no!" Then I get in here and find out that she will be obligated to pay spousal support to the man who was convicted of raping her? Again disappointment in the justice system.

believe09 said:

He could have eliminated it. His choices in cases where there is documented DV is that he can reduce it or eliminate it.

She got 2000.00 off since she was raped apparently.:banghead:

And what is with the jury being hung on the other two charges? He was convicted of the rape for the forced oral copulation, but NOT of the forcible rape and sodomy that occurred AFTER the oral copulation? :waitasec:

Click to expand...

They shouldn't leave that in the hands of judges. That out should be written in the law - beat, rape, stalk your wife (or husband), and you are no longer entitled to any support.

Not sure about the charges - it'd be interesting to see more information from the trial. Was there no physical evidence? What was the issue? There had to be something significant, for the jury to find one but not the other two.

I don't understand. WHY should the judge have her give her abuser any type of monetary reward?

I have a problem not only with the husband, but with the wife. She makes good money, and yet she stays with this creeper? WTH?

He starts abusing her in 1998, yet apologizes and she cancels the divorce. Oh, he was so apologetic she says!

Things got really bad in 2005.

From 2005 and 2007 I'm gonna assume it was not all wine and roses

She filed for divorce in 2007

They had a big fight in 2008 (but I thought they might have been divorced by then)?

She files charges, and it goes to trial in 2010.

This nonsense goes on for 10 YEARS! I'm never keen on blaming the victim, but can't understand why she tolerated any abuse 1 day let alone 10 years. She had the means to leave anytime she wanted to. Why didn't she?

This didn't have to happen had both parties parted ways a long long long time ago!

My opinion only --

Mel

Melanie said:

I have a problem not only with the husband, but with the wife. She makes good money, and yet she stays with this creeper? WTH?

He starts abusing her in 1998, yet apologizes and she cancels the divorce. Oh, he was so apologetic she says!

Things got really bad in 2005.

From 2005 and 2007 I'm gonna assume it was not all wine and roses

She filed for divorce in 2007

They had a big fight in 2008 (but I thought they might have been divorced by then)?

She files charges, and it goes to trial in 2010.

This nonsense goes on for 10 YEARS! I'm never keen on blaming the victim, but can't understand why she tolerated any abuse 1 day let alone 10 years. She had the means to leave anytime she wanted to. Why didn't she?

This didn't have to happen had both parties parted ways a long long long time ago!

My opinion only --

Mel

Click to expand...

Well speaking from experience, maybe she was scared to leave. Maybe she felt like she wouldn't be able to succeed? That's why I stayed in a 10 year relationship. I was afraid that I would not be able to do it on my own. And that made me stay with him. I finally got out back in March of this year, but until then I was paralyzed in fear. And I am still having to put up with his stalking and other crap!

Melanie said:

I have a problem not only with the husband, but with the wife. She makes good money, and yet she stays with this creeper? WTH?

He starts abusing her in 1998, yet apologizes and she cancels the divorce. Oh, he was so apologetic she says!

Things got really bad in 2005.

From 2005 and 2007 I'm gonna assume it was not all wine and roses

She filed for divorce in 2007

They had a big fight in 2008 (but I thought they might have been divorced by then)?

She files charges, and it goes to trial in 2010.

This nonsense goes on for 10 YEARS! I'm never keen on blaming the victim, but can't understand why she tolerated any abuse 1 day let alone 10 years. She had the means to leave anytime she wanted to. Why didn't she?

This didn't have to happen had both parties parted ways a long long long time ago!

My opinion only --

Mel

Click to expand...

Ummm..... didya read the part where she said he threatened to kill her if she ever tried to leave him? Fear perhaps? Ever had your life threatened?

Melanie said:

I have a problem not only with the husband, but with the wife. She makes good money, and yet she stays with this creeper? WTH?

He starts abusing her in 1998, yet apologizes and she cancels the divorce. Oh, he was so apologetic she says!

Things got really bad in 2005.

From 2005 and 2007 I'm gonna assume it was not all wine and roses

She filed for divorce in 2007

They had a big fight in 2008 (but I thought they might have been divorced by then)?

She files charges, and it goes to trial in 2010.

This nonsense goes on for 10 YEARS! I'm never keen on blaming the victim, but can't understand why she tolerated any abuse 1 day let alone 10 years. She had the means to leave anytime she wanted to. Why didn't she?

This didn't have to happen had both parties parted ways a long long long time ago!

My opinion only --

Mel

Click to expand...

I am a survivor of a seven year long relationship that included domestic violence, but will stop short at accusing you of "blaming the victim". I managed to procure 80% of the marital assets by proving I was the source of 100% of the marital assets. Still unfair? Oh, yes. He owes ME 158K of monies squandered on drugs and irresponsible spending (that is what I could reasonably "prove" via bank records), but in the end, he is entitled to 20% of the REMAINING assets that he did not squander. Unfair?

Yes.

We had a farm. I refused to abandon it. I loved the critters. I loved them (in excess, probably because of the misery of my relationship with him). I was pretty "decreased" when it came to making what normal, non-abused folks consider "good decisions".

The law that seem to screw over the victim in this relationship have NOTHING whatsoever to do with her pathetic decision to "stay" with her abuser. That is where your judgment goes sideways.

The laws simply do not address "the abuser does not deserve alimony". Domestic violence, even criminal rape, have not been made into a "factor" in deciding what is fair.

Be very reluctant to blame this lack of fairness on the victim of abuse.

This is an unfairness within the LAW as it exists.

Why would they stay if they were so abused? That is the age old question. And the answers are very complicated. Love, dependancy, fear, neediness, manipulation, parental love, denial all can be factors in why abuse victims stay.

I stayed because I couldn't believe that the abuse coming from my spouse really came from him. I thought he was ill. If he was ill, he needed me. But behind it all what was really really going on was denial. I wanted the marriage I thought I was getting when I married, and I denied to myself that that wasn't what I got.

The abuse didn't happen every day. And between times, I felt what was there was worth fighting for.